There has always been a question mark (albeit a small one) hanging over Viv Richards with respect to spin bowling. So while he can throttle any pace attack, I don't think he could do the same against quality spin bowling.

Tendulkar was beautiful to watch against spin bowlers like Warne, and was equally good against fast bowlers. That's why his away record is so good. However, Tendulkar rarely, if ever, dominated a Test series. He is just not the dominating type.

Which is why Lara and Graeme Pollock are preferable to Viv Richards and Tendulkar. Both batsman had no problem smashing either a pace or spin attack, or dominating an entire Test series with the bat.

With Bradman in the side , I'm not sure anyone else will dominate any given series. For all the talk about Tendulkar not dominating a series, you have to remember India will mostly play 3 test series. I am pretty sure he played about just 3-4 five match series in his career. Besides I don't really think Pollock is as good a batsman as Sachin is.

As brilliant as Lara is he is no Viv. Viv struggling against spin, when did that happen? He was excellent, he may not be as good as Lara against spin, then again Lara is no Viv against pace. Besides Lara always struggled against likes of Akram, Waqar, Donald through out his career. Viv never had a bogey bowler in his playing days.

With Bradman in the side , I'm not sure anyone else will dominate any given series. For all the talk about Tendulkar not dominating a series, you have to remember India will mostly play 3 test series. I am pretty sure he played about just 3-4 five match series in his career. Besides I don't really think Pollock is as good a batsman as Sachin is.

As brilliant as Lara is he is no Viv. Viv struggling against spin, when did that happen? He was excellent, he may not be as good as Lara against spin, then again Lara is no Viv against pace. Besides Lara always struggled against likes of Akram, Waqar, Donald through out his career. Viv never had a bogey bowler in his playing days.

I don't think you can make a fair comparison on that highlighted area above.We never really got to see Pollock's longevity in the game.SaME AS Barry Richards.And don't throw stats at me to vindicate your statement.We just did not see enough

I don't think you can make a fair comparison on that highlighted area above.We never really got to see Pollock's longevity in the game.SaME AS Barry Richards.And don't throw stats at me to vindicate your statement.We just did not see enough

Yep! That is my point regarding selecting a test XI. Since we did not see Pollock as much as we like to see, might as well go for some one who we know performed very well long time. By the way when I said Sachin is better, not in strict batsman-ship terms, rather he did enough to justify his place in a test XI ahead of Pollock whose career cut short in his prime. If we are talking all types, then might as well select WG Grace ahead of every body in that list. But Since it is supposed to be test XI, I am going for full test careers.

I love Lara and he was one of my favourite batsman ever to watch and my favourite series ever was the 213 and 153 one against Australia which was legendary batting.

However, I still feel that hes been overrated since he retired. He's an all time great but we cant forget that for such a champion batsman there were many series where he was ordinary and definitely had technical issues against pace bowling.

Bowlers like Mcgrath generally had the wood over him, and I can remember just before that Australia series West Indies lost 5-0 to SA and Lara was virtually a non factor. In his last 3 series against England from 2000 to 2004 he really struggled with the moving ball, but rectified his stats with that 400* against England.

This as well as longevity is probably why I rate Sachin a bit higher than Lara. The main credit Lara has over Sachin, was where Sachin struggled with Murali in tests, Lara was able to dominate him. The hardest challenge on a consistent basis was to face Muralitharan at home.

From my years of watching Lara, I would also say that the bowlers who caused him nightmares were the express type who moved the ball around. Bowlers like : Donald, Akram, Waqar, Bond etc. But with all due respect, Sachin (average wise) wasnt all that sucessful vs the above same bowlers either.

I love Lara and he was one of my favourite batsman ever to watch and my favourite series ever was the 213 and 153 one against Australia which was legendary batting.

However, I still feel that hes been overrated since he retired. He's an all time great but we cant forget that for such a champion batsman there were many series where he was ordinary and definitely had technical issues against pace bowling.

Bowlers like Mcgrath generally had the wood over him, and I can remember just before that Australia series West Indies lost 5-0 to SA and Lara was virtually a non factor. In his last 3 series against England from 2000 to 2004 he really struggled with the moving ball, but rectified his stats with that 400* against England.

This as well as longevity is probably why I rate Sachin a bit higher than Lara. The main credit Lara has over Sachin, was where Sachin struggled with Murali in tests, Lara was able to dominate him. The hardest challenge on a consistent basis was to face Muralitharan at home.

Although I broadly agree, McGrath didn't really got the better of Lara. He might have gotten Lara out lots of times, but I am pretty sure against AUS teams with McGrath in them Lara has arguably the best record of any batsmen.

As Slifer mentioned, and I previously alluded Donald, Akram, Waqar were the kind of bowlers Lara struggled against the most. Sachin also struggled against them but he was at least able to score a century or two.

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

Yeah I find that to b most peculiar. Because u would think that spinners generally place less strain on their bodies. That being saaid Mustaq Mohammed wasnt all that bad pretty decent spinner and a good batsman from all reports.

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

I'm being picky here. I don't think that any of those players are in the same class as Imran, Hadlee, or even Botham. I'll also throw in Miller, Procter and Kapil Dev. By and large, all the really great allrounders bowl fast for some reason. No offence to Richie.